Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

It is usable only for maps generated for area similar to the one pictured, therefore it should be added at stage of processing data, not to the OSM database. It suffers from the same problem as "lets place a single node." On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:16:39 -0800 Tobias Knerr

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

On 12.12.2013 21:52, Steve Bennett wrote: > It'd be a way, not a node. And maybe there are strong guidelines > somewhere for defining its exact location? You could also use an area and construct a word shape as illustrated in this featured image: http://wiki.osm.org/File:Maxbe-stubaier-beschriftun

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:24 PM, bulwersator wrote: > With mountain ranges there would be a major problem where node should be > placed. Carpathian Mountains cover 190 000 km² - good luck with edit wars > where node should be placed. > > It'd be a way, not a node. And maybe there are strong guid

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

> it won't be a clearly defined border where some meters more or less matter or > are clearly definable IMO one can always ask the locals/local geologists "is this location/point a part of the mountain/mountain range". At some point, "everybody" agrees that it is, and somewhere further down the

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

2013/12/12 Elena ``of Valhalla'' > big human settlements tend to be associated with one or more clearly > define legal entities and we tend to map those, not the actual > settlement. > actually we are mapping both, and there is no compelling reason to refrain from mapping one or the other... c

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

On 2013-12-12 at 12:37:30 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2013/12/12 Andrew Guertin > > Many villages or other small human settlements have no clearly defined > > boundaries, and we just represent them as a node. > IMHO big human settlements are more difficult than small ones when it comes > t

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

2013/12/12 Andrew Guertin > Many villages or other small human settlements have no clearly defined > boundaries, and we just represent them as a node. > IMHO big human settlements are more difficult than small ones when it comes to define their edges. You can represent (from a data model point

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

With mountain ranges there would be a major problem where node should be placed. Carpathian Mountains cover 190 000 km² - good luck with edit wars where node should be placed. It probably would work better as a separate database. On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:09:47 -0800 Andrew Guertin

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

On 12/12/2013 05:53 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/12/12 Steve Bennett IMHO it would be nice to have an alternative dataset in lower zoomlevels for geographic regions and extended/blurry features, something like a set of shapefiles with translations into all languages we can provide, somet

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

2013/12/12 Steve Bennett > (a "mountain range" is really an abstraction over a number of individual > mountains, and it's up to some sort of geologists' consensus where it > begins and ends). > +1, and it won't be a clearly defined border where some meters more or less matter or are clearly def

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Andrew Errington wrote: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:26:55 Steve Bennett wrote:Yes please! I just added > some hiking trails and had a named spur[1] that I > wanted to record. I used place=locality, but it seems wrong for the same > reasons you give. I'd suggest th

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > the question should be: how to map a mountain range, as it seems we can't > represent these kind of features (very big, blurry borders, not mappable in > high zoom levels) well in our data model. That's the ma

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:03 AM, Andrew Errington wrote: > > Yes please! I just added some hiking trails and had a named spur[1] that I > wanted to record. I used place=locality, but it seems wrong for the same > reasons you give. I'd suggest that since we have natural=peak, and > natural=saddle

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

2013/12/10 Steve Bennett > - how do you tag a mountain range? That is, not a single ridge or > mountain, but a line of mountains, potentially hundreds or even thousands > of kilometres long > the question should be: how to map a mountain range, as it seems we can't represent these kind of featu

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

2013/12/10 Andrew Errington : > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:26:55 Steve Bennett wrote: >> Hi all, >> My cycletouring map, http://cycletour.org, has been slowly morphing into >> a general topographic map[1]. One thing that's missing, though, is names >> for topographic features like mountain ranges, sp

Re: [Tagging] Topographic place names

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:26:55 Steve Bennett wrote: > Hi all, > My cycletouring map, http://cycletour.org, has been slowly morphing into > a general topographic map[1]. One thing that's missing, though, is names > for topographic features like mountain ranges, spurs, and general areas. > > Looking

[Tagging] Topographic place names

Hi all, My cycletouring map, http://cycletour.org, has been slowly morphing into a general topographic map[1]. One thing that's missing, though, is names for topographic features like mountain ranges, spurs, and general areas. Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:En:Key:natural